IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE EVELYN LEE SPOONER, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CITY OF PHOENIX, et al., Defendants/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV 17-0500 FILED 11-27-2018 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2012-015913 The Honorable Joshua D. Rogers, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Debus Kazan & Westerhausen, Ltd., Phoenix By Tracey Westerhausen, Larry L. Debus, Gregory M. Zamora Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant Burch & Cracchiolo, Phoenix By Melissa Iyer Julian Counsel for Defendants/Appellees SPOONER v. PHOENIX, et al. Opinion of the Court OPINION Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which Vice Chief Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined. J O N E S, Judge: ¶1 Evelyn Spooner appeals from a judgment entered in favor of the City of Phoenix and Toni Brown (collectively, the City) on her civil claims arising from a purported wrongful arrest. Spooner argues the trial court erred by precluding her from using Brown’s grand jury testimony to impeach Brown’s credibility at trial and directing a verdict on her simple negligence claim. We affirm the preclusion of Brown’s grand jury testimony and hold that a law enforcement officer is not subject to civil liability for simple negligence arising from an investigation into criminal activity. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In 2009, Brown, a detective with the Phoenix Police Department, began investigating Spooner’s financial relationship with ninety-five-year-old Mary B. At a 2011 grand jury proceeding, Brown testified about her investigation, and the grand jury indicted Spooner for three counts of theft from a vulnerable adult and one count of unlawful use of a power of attorney. The State later dismissed the criminal charges, and Spooner then filed suit against the City asserting purported constitutional violations, simple negligence, gross negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and malicious arrest. Spooner supported these claims with allegations that Brown lied to the grand jury, withheld exculpatory evidence, and failed to properly investigate Spooner’s relationship with Mary.1 ¶3 After the close of evidence in an eight-day civil jury trial, the trial court entered judgment as a matter of law in the City’s favor on 1 Spooner also alleged the City did not properly supervise and train its employees to prevent wrongful arrests, but she did not advance this theory at trial. 2 SPOONER v. PHOENIX, et al. Opinion of the Court Spooner’s claims for simple negligence, malicious arrest, and constitutional violations. The jury then found for the City on the claims for gross negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Spooner timely appealed the final judgment, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 12-120.21(A)(1)2 and -2101(A)(1). DISCUSSION I. The Trial Court Acted Within its Discretion in Excluding Brown’s Grand Jury Testimony for Use as Impeachment Evidence. ¶4 At oral argument on appeal, Spooner conceded that grand jury witnesses enjoy absolute immunity for claims arising from their testimony. See Green Acres Tr. v. London, 141 Ariz. 609, 613 (1984); see also Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals